surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
You should have mentioned that the only game which you can feel 100% good about illegally downloading is AMY.
Jim, you're a hero. Did you know that?
I'd thank God for you, but I don't believe in him, so I'll thank the cosmos for you.
I'd thank God for you, but I don't believe in him, so I'll thank the cosmos for you.
"This is the first episode in a miniature series looking at the problem of videogame piracy."
If its not about miniature ponies, I'm out.
@Sir Tobbii
Not sure if your being funny or not, but I'm sure the consensus most people have is that the "official" timeline still isn't good enough when Nintendo can recant it whenever they want, for whatever reason they want (and this timeline leaves that door open WIDE), like they've done before in the past with the timeline that was on the official Zelda site in the early 2000's.
If its not about miniature ponies, I'm out.
@Sir Tobbii
Not sure if your being funny or not, but I'm sure the consensus most people have is that the "official" timeline still isn't good enough when Nintendo can recant it whenever they want, for whatever reason they want (and this timeline leaves that door open WIDE), like they've done before in the past with the timeline that was on the official Zelda site in the early 2000's.
"Biblay" I love you Jimmy Boy.
I am not a pirate. That said piracy is not such a black and white debate. Thank you for illuminating on copyright. Too many do not understand patent hoarders and "trolls". The problem is too many use emotional arguments which are not necessarily "bad", but require inquisition. I have been saying it for years the middle men are trying to hold on to their necessity in the industry.
I am not a pirate. That said piracy is not such a black and white debate. Thank you for illuminating on copyright. Too many do not understand patent hoarders and "trolls". The problem is too many use emotional arguments which are not necessarily "bad", but require inquisition. I have been saying it for years the middle men are trying to hold on to their necessity in the industry.
I have Episode 2 if anyone wants it before Jim decides to grace his followers with it:
http://megaupload.com/f4tt1ts
http://megaupload.com/f4tt1ts
Come gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you
Is worth savin'
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'.
Sorry couldn't resist. This DIY movement is really exciting my man parts.
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you
Is worth savin'
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'.
Sorry couldn't resist. This DIY movement is really exciting my man parts.
I find it funny and strange that some software pirates are assuming everyone was against SOPA to support their habits.
Most of us just hated the potential way it could affect us law abiding gamers. Plus it seemed redundant with current laws. We weren't supporting you pirates, nor your theft habits. I still think more measures should be taken to curb piracy, just not at the expense of those who do not pirate.
Most of us just hated the potential way it could affect us law abiding gamers. Plus it seemed redundant with current laws. We weren't supporting you pirates, nor your theft habits. I still think more measures should be taken to curb piracy, just not at the expense of those who do not pirate.
I agree with what Jim's saying, but the problem isn't just with the publishers. Just mostly. A team like Swingin' Ape Studios starts out with a brilliant idea and no money. They go to Vivendi who says "ok, well fork over X amount of money so that you can make your game, but because we're taking such a risk, if it's successful, we'll own all the rights to the game." Swingin' Ape Studios (and hundreds of other studios like it) are left in a hard place-- take the money and make their dream project with the prospect of success and potentially making more like it? Or somehow self-fund the game? Keep in mind Metal Arms was made before the Indie game scene had really come into its own. The unfortunate thing is that they went for it, it did poorly, and they never got to make another game again. The bright side is we got Metal Arms in the first place-- something that wouldn't have happened if there was no publisher.
As for licensing out copyrights, it happens all the time-- the trouble is that a big publisher isn't going to want to take that risk UNTIL the developer has proven itself as a valuable game developer. If, say, Naughty Dog were to separate from Sony and need to find a publisher, you can be certain that they won't let any publisher own any of their IP's -- because they have a gaggle of successful games under their belt, they have proven their worth, and are no longer a risk.
It all comes down to this, Jim: The difference between licensing and selling ownership in an IP isn't necessarily the law's fault -- it's all based on the risk related to putting up the money to bring that game to life.
As for licensing out copyrights, it happens all the time-- the trouble is that a big publisher isn't going to want to take that risk UNTIL the developer has proven itself as a valuable game developer. If, say, Naughty Dog were to separate from Sony and need to find a publisher, you can be certain that they won't let any publisher own any of their IP's -- because they have a gaggle of successful games under their belt, they have proven their worth, and are no longer a risk.
It all comes down to this, Jim: The difference between licensing and selling ownership in an IP isn't necessarily the law's fault -- it's all based on the risk related to putting up the money to bring that game to life.
Nowadays, anything published is automatically on public domain. The digital age and the internet works this way, laws need to be changed to account for that. If you don't want people copying your work, don't show it to anyone.
Here's the one problem here. Developers who make these games for big publishers usually go into this knowing that their creation is going to be owned by the publisher, in fact they're making it for the publisher for the most part. Whether or not the publisher sits on the IP or not isn't the point, the point is that they've owned it from day one and the people who made Metal Arms (for example) knew this going into it.
It's kind of like the legal battle taking place over the Superman property between DC Comics and the descendants of creators Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster. The creators descendants feel they have a claim to the copyright (somehow), meanwhile DC is of the stance that "These guys made this while working for and specifically for our company".
It's kind of like the legal battle taking place over the Superman property between DC Comics and the descendants of creators Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster. The creators descendants feel they have a claim to the copyright (somehow), meanwhile DC is of the stance that "These guys made this while working for and specifically for our company".
Very good points raised. I think a lot of piracy is on NEW releases, though, so the game's developers ARE being hurt...?
If you want to get to the bottom of copyright issue there's great (unfortunately also long) video on youtube under "Why Intellectual Property is not Genuine Property," Adam Smith Forum, Moscow -- Stephan Kinsella . It is just a state granted monopoly and there is nothing more to it.
Though, ideological issues aside, we live where and when we live. Can't choose this. Even if likes of Activision have huge unfair advantage - if they are selling me valuable entertainment I'd say paying is the right thing to do. It's not like more piracy will untangle current state of copyright law. At least some part of the money goes where it belongs. Piracy already pissed off some people, provoke them into action, and in turn general public became aware of the deeper problem. The underlaying issue might now be at last exposed. Either from the side of how current copyright law is at the base unjust, or from the side of much more important values under threat.
Though, ideological issues aside, we live where and when we live. Can't choose this. Even if likes of Activision have huge unfair advantage - if they are selling me valuable entertainment I'd say paying is the right thing to do. It's not like more piracy will untangle current state of copyright law. At least some part of the money goes where it belongs. Piracy already pissed off some people, provoke them into action, and in turn general public became aware of the deeper problem. The underlaying issue might now be at last exposed. Either from the side of how current copyright law is at the base unjust, or from the side of much more important values under threat.
Much as I don't like Jim Sterling's general attitude/writing/whatever but I really have to agree with this video
"It's kind of like the legal battle taking place over the Superman property between DC Comics and the descendants of creators Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster. The creators descendants feel they have a claim to the copyright (somehow), meanwhile DC is of the stance that "These guys made this while working for and specifically for our company"."
Which explains why some people choose to write novels instead of comic books.
Just an aside, carry on. :)
Which explains why some people choose to write novels instead of comic books.
Just an aside, carry on. :)
When did it become ok to tell another man you love him over the internet? Emo has ruined Amurrica.
On a side note, Metal Arms is a great example that supports your case, but I doubt Metal Arms is why these laws exist. I also doubt Metal Arms has been pirated more than ten times in the last year. The concern is over brand new titles that are still attached to their creator. And indie games, which you claim is another issue but I think stealing is stealing. As you mentioned, pirates are not Robin Hood. They don't decide to steal only from rich companies, or companies that suffocate IP's. Pirates steal what they want, indie games included.
On a side note, Metal Arms is a great example that supports your case, but I doubt Metal Arms is why these laws exist. I also doubt Metal Arms has been pirated more than ten times in the last year. The concern is over brand new titles that are still attached to their creator. And indie games, which you claim is another issue but I think stealing is stealing. As you mentioned, pirates are not Robin Hood. They don't decide to steal only from rich companies, or companies that suffocate IP's. Pirates steal what they want, indie games included.
To anyone who can not make heads or tails of Spawn's plot can at least understand what issue 10 was about, that being the very subject of this episode of the Jimquisition but with 100% more aardvark, 200% more demons and no dildos(of the literal variety, anyway).
Current copyright laws have probably discouraged more artists from creating new content because any publisher with the greenbacks to give them adequate backing and distribution get to sit on their creation for the rest of their existences.
The prospect of companies still receiving money for derivative works long after the creator is dead(see the Walt Disney company's stable of works)while their own descendants don't get to see a dime of it or the fact that any further attempts of the original creator of a work to create future installments of a work amount to nothing more substantial than professional quality fan-fiction while low-quality fan-fiction done by some hack working for the publisher who holds the copyright is considered to be the official canon of the series is bound to be pretty discouraging for them.
Reforming the copyright laws wouldn't just render SOPA and its ilk meaningless to big corporations since they won't profit from it any,it would completely change the games available.
If Keiji Inafune wanted to make more Mega Man, he would be able to.He also could have kept Capcom from milking the series for as long as they had.
If Yu Suzuki owned the rights to Shenmue, we all could have been looking back at Shenmue 3 nostalgically by now instead of wondering what could have been.
I'm slightly surprised that the stance in this episode was less extreme that Dean Baker's similarly themed post in today's Huffington Post even though comedic extremes are on of the Jimquisition's defining traits.
No,wait, really I'm not.
Current copyright laws have probably discouraged more artists from creating new content because any publisher with the greenbacks to give them adequate backing and distribution get to sit on their creation for the rest of their existences.
The prospect of companies still receiving money for derivative works long after the creator is dead(see the Walt Disney company's stable of works)while their own descendants don't get to see a dime of it or the fact that any further attempts of the original creator of a work to create future installments of a work amount to nothing more substantial than professional quality fan-fiction while low-quality fan-fiction done by some hack working for the publisher who holds the copyright is considered to be the official canon of the series is bound to be pretty discouraging for them.
Reforming the copyright laws wouldn't just render SOPA and its ilk meaningless to big corporations since they won't profit from it any,it would completely change the games available.
If Keiji Inafune wanted to make more Mega Man, he would be able to.He also could have kept Capcom from milking the series for as long as they had.
If Yu Suzuki owned the rights to Shenmue, we all could have been looking back at Shenmue 3 nostalgically by now instead of wondering what could have been.
I'm slightly surprised that the stance in this episode was less extreme that Dean Baker's similarly themed post in today's Huffington Post even though comedic extremes are on of the Jimquisition's defining traits.
No,wait, really I'm not.
I am saddened every time I am reminded of Metal Arms and how we'll never "know" that General Corrosive was Glitch's...hmm dunno if finishing this sentence is a spoiler or not...
Metal Arms DESERVED to be a big game when it came out. Especially considering it was a budget title.
Metal Arms DESERVED to be a big game when it came out. Especially considering it was a budget title.
Up until recently, I've always been in favor of both intellectual property and copyrights. But lately(mostly thanks to SOPA) I've been looking a lot into the arguments against them, and I now lean more towards the position that intellectual property and copyrights(or rather one person/corporation holding the exclusive right to copy something) shouldn't exist at all.
Back when I was more in favor of copyrights, I really had no problem with the way copyright laws are currently written. If you own something, then you have the right to sell it, trade it, or give it away. If you do any of those things, then you no longer own the item in question.
So if we accept that an artist should own the exclusive right to copy his or her creations, then we must also accept that he or she can sell, trade, or give that exclusive right to someone else. If an artist agrees to give a corporation their exclusive right to copy their creation, or agrees to work for that corporation with the condition that the corporation holds the copyrights to anything that the artist creates for them, then I don't see why the artist should have any control over that creation.
If you sell your car, you no longer have any more ownership over that car than anyone else, other than the person who you sold it to. If we accept that a person can have a legitimate claim of ownership of the right to copy something, then how is selling that exclusive right any different than selling a car?
Back when I was more in favor of copyrights, I really had no problem with the way copyright laws are currently written. If you own something, then you have the right to sell it, trade it, or give it away. If you do any of those things, then you no longer own the item in question.
So if we accept that an artist should own the exclusive right to copy his or her creations, then we must also accept that he or she can sell, trade, or give that exclusive right to someone else. If an artist agrees to give a corporation their exclusive right to copy their creation, or agrees to work for that corporation with the condition that the corporation holds the copyrights to anything that the artist creates for them, then I don't see why the artist should have any control over that creation.
If you sell your car, you no longer have any more ownership over that car than anyone else, other than the person who you sold it to. If we accept that a person can have a legitimate claim of ownership of the right to copy something, then how is selling that exclusive right any different than selling a car?
@Jinx 01
For the piracy to hurt someone it must be the case that the person who downloads would in different situation pay the price. This is some fraction of total downloads. For it to benefit someone, some user that first downloaded the game buys it or at least gets the sequel legally (that he would not buy). This again is some fraction of all cases. There's also some small positive overall effect of piracy, as people get easy access to the medium. You get hooked on games while being a teenager, when you get some disposable income later you spend it on games. There is no good study to point out how much money is actually lost considering that you can't just count the downloads and multiply them by price. You would probably need to have two separate groups and monitor them for 10+ years and see which one of them spent more on games total. And how big was the difference.
BTW Even though I believe copyright is unjust and should be abolished I don't think most games will ever be "pay as much as you want". All the big AAA releases that cost tens of millions and are made by hundreds of people can't risk anything like this. Without copyright they will still sell multiplayer accounts, server access etc. Also, aspiring developers will still need to go through hardships too get their things out to the world, and maybe sell out chances for future profits to get the funding. It will just be a little better for the small guys, and a little worse for the big guys.
For the piracy to hurt someone it must be the case that the person who downloads would in different situation pay the price. This is some fraction of total downloads. For it to benefit someone, some user that first downloaded the game buys it or at least gets the sequel legally (that he would not buy). This again is some fraction of all cases. There's also some small positive overall effect of piracy, as people get easy access to the medium. You get hooked on games while being a teenager, when you get some disposable income later you spend it on games. There is no good study to point out how much money is actually lost considering that you can't just count the downloads and multiply them by price. You would probably need to have two separate groups and monitor them for 10+ years and see which one of them spent more on games total. And how big was the difference.
BTW Even though I believe copyright is unjust and should be abolished I don't think most games will ever be "pay as much as you want". All the big AAA releases that cost tens of millions and are made by hundreds of people can't risk anything like this. Without copyright they will still sell multiplayer accounts, server access etc. Also, aspiring developers will still need to go through hardships too get their things out to the world, and maybe sell out chances for future profits to get the funding. It will just be a little better for the small guys, and a little worse for the big guys.
Have no idea why copyright is the life of the creator plus 70 years. It is the biggest fucking joke I have ever heard of.
The worst example is looking at Martin Luther King's estate. The family argues over who has the rights all the time and one of his sons has a holding company that sells the rights.
The broadcast of his "I have a dream" speech is $10. And where is this money going? Straight into this guys back pocket. He even charged for the memorial to the tune of $800,000. $71,000 of that was a fucking management fee.
My Steam library is to over £2,000 even at current Steam prices at over 250 games and have masses of console games, but all this bullshit has a limit. As of the 26th of January, I'm becoming an active member of the Pirate Party UK. That may only make a tiny difference, but I cannot sit by idly and just watch our rights get eroded.
The worst example is looking at Martin Luther King's estate. The family argues over who has the rights all the time and one of his sons has a holding company that sells the rights.
The broadcast of his "I have a dream" speech is $10. And where is this money going? Straight into this guys back pocket. He even charged for the memorial to the tune of $800,000. $71,000 of that was a fucking management fee.
My Steam library is to over £2,000 even at current Steam prices at over 250 games and have masses of console games, but all this bullshit has a limit. As of the 26th of January, I'm becoming an active member of the Pirate Party UK. That may only make a tiny difference, but I cannot sit by idly and just watch our rights get eroded.
Also, please take part in Black March. I know I will be: Details here. I will be at least a month late to the Mass Effect 3 and Street Fighter X Tekken party, that's how much this means to me.
Also Jimothy, keep your eye out. Good old Laminar Smith, SOPA bill sponsor, has suddenly sponsored an Anto-Child porn bill. I'm guessing SOPA will be a rider to it. But of course if we protest that one, we'll be helping child pornographers....
FINALLY, here is a petition for US people: Investigate Chris Dodd, the MPAA and the RIAA for bribery. Former senator and now MPAA chairman,Chris Dodd said on Fox News "Those who count on quote 'Hollywood' for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who's going to stand up for them when their job is at stake. Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake".
If it gets 25k signatures, the White House is obligated to at least respond. These guys need at least looking into.
Also Jimothy, keep your eye out. Good old Laminar Smith, SOPA bill sponsor, has suddenly sponsored an Anto-Child porn bill. I'm guessing SOPA will be a rider to it. But of course if we protest that one, we'll be helping child pornographers....
FINALLY, here is a petition for US people: Investigate Chris Dodd, the MPAA and the RIAA for bribery. Former senator and now MPAA chairman,Chris Dodd said on Fox News "Those who count on quote 'Hollywood' for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who's going to stand up for them when their job is at stake. Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake".
If it gets 25k signatures, the White House is obligated to at least respond. These guys need at least looking into.
If you think copy rights are dumb now look into coding copy rights, thats right now you just cannot code anything anymore because you could be infringing them.
Big f***ing corperations are buying up compy rights and then taking little people to coart everyday and legaly are out gunning them to copy rights that they should have.
so dumb!
Big f***ing corperations are buying up compy rights and then taking little people to coart everyday and legaly are out gunning them to copy rights that they should have.
so dumb!
bravo, good show old boy.
not since the iraq war demonstrations do i recall a time when the entire world has been pissed off at their governments for so many reasons. interesting times.
not since the iraq war demonstrations do i recall a time when the entire world has been pissed off at their governments for so many reasons. interesting times.
No idea why that petition link didn't work. Try this one: LINKY TO PETITION
@Retrofaction
Are you talking more about software patents rather than "Code Copyright"?
If so, that's a fundamentally broken system in the US. Thankfully, we don't have that over here... Yet. ACTA will have them.
Are you talking more about software patents rather than "Code Copyright"?
If so, that's a fundamentally broken system in the US. Thankfully, we don't have that over here... Yet. ACTA will have them.
That was an amazing episode. I was discussing these same arguments with someone else yesterday, not accusing you of stealing my points, but as the creator of those arguments, maybe I should of copy write them.
I don't see how outdated copyright legislation somehow justifies piracy.
Video game publishers, like Activision, employ thousands of employees. If profits are down as a result of piracy, they can't afford to employ as many people, which translates into layoffs. Even though your average Activision employee might not get a fair piece of the profit pie, they can still potentially be hurt by piracy. My point is that piracy is never a victimless crime, and it's naive to think it is.
Video game publishers, like Activision, employ thousands of employees. If profits are down as a result of piracy, they can't afford to employ as many people, which translates into layoffs. Even though your average Activision employee might not get a fair piece of the profit pie, they can still potentially be hurt by piracy. My point is that piracy is never a victimless crime, and it's naive to think it is.
@Jim Sterling Piracy has little to do with Copyright issues. Pirates aren't creating informational videos or remixing content, they're freeloading an experience. And someone has to get paid if anything the size of Crysis 2 or Batman:AC is going to get made. Big budget movies would also be limited by less-lucritive sales figures. Music is another matter. Some of my favorite music is made in basements and bars, and doesn't require the RIAA bastards whatsoever.
To sum: Movie and game pirates and Pete Townshend can go fuck themselves.
To sum: Movie and game pirates and Pete Townshend can go fuck themselves.
LEGENDARY.
I totally agree with this sentiment. I would never consider pirating unepic or minecraft or nightsky or braid, it just doesn't seem to make sense. those guys have worked a labour of love on those games and are merely asking for a small donation.
to steal one of those games, I would feel like i were spitting in the face of the person who makes my lunch.
I totally agree with this sentiment. I would never consider pirating unepic or minecraft or nightsky or braid, it just doesn't seem to make sense. those guys have worked a labour of love on those games and are merely asking for a small donation.
to steal one of those games, I would feel like i were spitting in the face of the person who makes my lunch.
indeed I think copyright should have a limited lifespan at least for the games/movies/music themselves. I mean a game that is over 20 years old why wouldn't we be allowed to all just reproduce it, the owner has had its time with it no need to leave it monopolized any longer same for movies and music.
While making some valid points on copyrights, the entire point is still missed. What Jim just scrutinized Vivendi Universal for doing is almost EXACTLY what the guys at Mega Upload did i.e. making money off of things they didn't create.
Piracy is the problem that led to ACTA and will lead to an observed internet sooner or later.
Publisher are bad. But fighting Publisher with Piracy is the stupiest thing anyone can do. STEAM is something that fights publisher, by giving the Game Production Companys an easy way to selfpublish their games. Of course also PSN and XBox Arcade (or however it is named).
But stealing from the publisher is also stealing from the developer. And it's destroying whole plattforms, like PC Gaming (well, you can of course close your eyes and say it isn't true.. but then you are to young to remember real PC Gaming dominance pre high speed internet times..), PSP in the West or the DS in the east.
Publisher are bad. But fighting Publisher with Piracy is the stupiest thing anyone can do. STEAM is something that fights publisher, by giving the Game Production Companys an easy way to selfpublish their games. Of course also PSN and XBox Arcade (or however it is named).
But stealing from the publisher is also stealing from the developer. And it's destroying whole plattforms, like PC Gaming (well, you can of course close your eyes and say it isn't true.. but then you are to young to remember real PC Gaming dominance pre high speed internet times..), PSP in the West or the DS in the east.
Seriously Jim, thank you. The witty comments and jokes aside, I am thrilled that someone in your position is enthusiastically bringing some of these arguments to light.
So often it seems like we go along with business as usual as though business as usual is the benchmark for what's right, and what's wrong. There are fundamental problems with business as usual, and until we come to terms with the fact that the game was skewed to begin with, and that the base of many popular notions lies on that skewed vision of how things are "supposed" to operate, things won't change in a meaningful way.
I've been using the analogy that we often debate and argue about the proper way to put out a small flame on our stovetop, when our entire house was already on fire to begin with. Our surface problems are more than just little blazes here and there, they're indicative of the larger fire all around us, one that most seem not to notice.
Seriously man, if only a few people see these vids and decide to really look into things, only good things could come of it.
So often it seems like we go along with business as usual as though business as usual is the benchmark for what's right, and what's wrong. There are fundamental problems with business as usual, and until we come to terms with the fact that the game was skewed to begin with, and that the base of many popular notions lies on that skewed vision of how things are "supposed" to operate, things won't change in a meaningful way.
I've been using the analogy that we often debate and argue about the proper way to put out a small flame on our stovetop, when our entire house was already on fire to begin with. Our surface problems are more than just little blazes here and there, they're indicative of the larger fire all around us, one that most seem not to notice.
Seriously man, if only a few people see these vids and decide to really look into things, only good things could come of it.
Well said.
I hope people understand that the 'victimless crime' idea, within the context of this video really only should pertain to dead or stagnant content. Perhaps even to content 5-10 years old, content which has no updates, you hear nothing about, is is largely forgotten.
I've related a similar opinion about foreign or 'not in print' content, specifically movies. In the conversation about this opinion on foreign movies someone tried to twist my arm and explain that what I say about foreign movies I can say about local ones which have little to no distribution. To a point I agree, but in that same token, the person I was speaking to began to reason out downloading movies that are still in theaters after the first month because "all the money they needed to make should have been made" and that "the 10c a disc printing" of DVD's, and to a more expensive extent BluRay discs, are just "drops into a corporate bucket that is more in the hands of retailers than it is movie studios". To a point I agree, as I'm sure the percentages delivered to those who were involved in the picture (if any) by way of retail merchandise, would probably be by case or order of said product.
Corporately owned intellectual properties and licences become the finished product of creators who are what? Only sub contracted? Insulators don't get to be 'part owner' to buildings they fill with fluff. They get there pay and nothing more. Unfortunately arguments about physical rights are a little different than digital rights. But, salaries, great benefits and excellent profit sharing is in place at many video game companies. It is as much incentive to create excellent work while under the employ of a corporation as much as it is an incentive to further yourself in you profession.
TLDR: Even though your argument does not address my own, I agree on many points. It is not the case that I agree or disagree entirely.
I hope people understand that the 'victimless crime' idea, within the context of this video really only should pertain to dead or stagnant content. Perhaps even to content 5-10 years old, content which has no updates, you hear nothing about, is is largely forgotten.
I've related a similar opinion about foreign or 'not in print' content, specifically movies. In the conversation about this opinion on foreign movies someone tried to twist my arm and explain that what I say about foreign movies I can say about local ones which have little to no distribution. To a point I agree, but in that same token, the person I was speaking to began to reason out downloading movies that are still in theaters after the first month because "all the money they needed to make should have been made" and that "the 10c a disc printing" of DVD's, and to a more expensive extent BluRay discs, are just "drops into a corporate bucket that is more in the hands of retailers than it is movie studios". To a point I agree, as I'm sure the percentages delivered to those who were involved in the picture (if any) by way of retail merchandise, would probably be by case or order of said product.
Corporately owned intellectual properties and licences become the finished product of creators who are what? Only sub contracted? Insulators don't get to be 'part owner' to buildings they fill with fluff. They get there pay and nothing more. Unfortunately arguments about physical rights are a little different than digital rights. But, salaries, great benefits and excellent profit sharing is in place at many video game companies. It is as much incentive to create excellent work while under the employ of a corporation as much as it is an incentive to further yourself in you profession.
TLDR: Even though your argument does not address my own, I agree on many points. It is not the case that I agree or disagree entirely.
Huh? If you didn't realize that the corporate fight against piracy was about protecting potential profit, then wow... you were naive. It's never been about protecting the artists... it's been about employing the artist.
Megaupload was pretty blatant piracy. The fat cat mega-millionaire Kim Dotcom is a low life thief who started life selling stolen credit card numbers and moved on to embezzlement and insider trading. Aside from also apparently being the highest ranked MW3 player in the world, he's not really worked for anything in his life. (and I would somewhat doubt his world class standing in CoD given his less than reputable background). Megaupload made tons of money off of advertising and actively encouraged piracy by giving financial incentives for clients with popular downloads... which were almost entirely copyrighted works - movies still in the theatres or newly released video games. How is this right?? Megaupload was blatant and stupid, and they deserved to be taken down.
They may be just as stupid as Activision holding on to an old IP, but the "artist" should have made a better deal and instead of being an employee paid for his work, he should have gotten the copyright himself. Activision also employs people to create NEW work... megaupload makes money off of the greed of our consumerism and our unwillingness to pay the people who create these works.
There's a big difference. Piracy is still wrong, it doesn't matter how Activision or the RIAA or any other large corporation is... distributing copies of software that you didn't create, don't own and that require a large financial investment to create ... it's piracy and it's wrong.
Two wrongs don't create a right.
SOPA and PIPA aren't the answer... but Megaupload certainly isn't either.
Megaupload was pretty blatant piracy. The fat cat mega-millionaire Kim Dotcom is a low life thief who started life selling stolen credit card numbers and moved on to embezzlement and insider trading. Aside from also apparently being the highest ranked MW3 player in the world, he's not really worked for anything in his life. (and I would somewhat doubt his world class standing in CoD given his less than reputable background). Megaupload made tons of money off of advertising and actively encouraged piracy by giving financial incentives for clients with popular downloads... which were almost entirely copyrighted works - movies still in the theatres or newly released video games. How is this right?? Megaupload was blatant and stupid, and they deserved to be taken down.
They may be just as stupid as Activision holding on to an old IP, but the "artist" should have made a better deal and instead of being an employee paid for his work, he should have gotten the copyright himself. Activision also employs people to create NEW work... megaupload makes money off of the greed of our consumerism and our unwillingness to pay the people who create these works.
There's a big difference. Piracy is still wrong, it doesn't matter how Activision or the RIAA or any other large corporation is... distributing copies of software that you didn't create, don't own and that require a large financial investment to create ... it's piracy and it's wrong.
Two wrongs don't create a right.
SOPA and PIPA aren't the answer... but Megaupload certainly isn't either.
follow
